Foma 200?

[Scott Davis]

I've shot a lot of it in 5x7 (and some in 8x10). As others have mentioned, actual speed is more like 100, and it develops very fast (7 minutes in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100). I've noticed, as Drew mentioned, that the original boxes it comes in are NOT long-term storage solutions. Also, I get the zits on it (little black dots in the emulsion) when it ages. So it is best to buy, shoot and process quickly. If you can do that, you'll be very happy with it.

[Willie]

Using film you know has problems is like driving a car you know vapor locks. All is fine until...

[wooserco]

I've never experienced the issues that the two most vociferous opponents of Foma 200 have so virtuously extolled. HOWEVER, my experience has only been in 4x5, not 120. In 4x5, I like it. I've shot their 100 speed film in 135. I have one negative from this emulsion that survived the May 2022 flood. That is one of my favorite shots.

Sadly, ALL of my negatives were destroyed in our flood last May 11, so I can't share any photos to back up my statement.

Maybe I'm lucky or I'm not as discerning as others. But, if their quality was so bad as these two have so vehemently expressed. Frankly, it's getting old. Don't busy it. Don't shoot it. But, don't condemn others because they do. I've seen shots that I really like from FOMA 200. None of the problems that the vociferous dual have so vehemently posted about. I'm not doubting that they have their issues, I'm just not discerning enough to see it IN MY SHOTS.

[Daniel Unkefer]

I've heard that the 4x5 200 looks really good pushed to 800. I'm about to find out, the holders are now loaded. I'll post when I'm ready

[wooserco]

Looking forward to seeing your results! I REALLY need to get out shooting.

[nitroplait]

Foma 200 in 120 format is widely considered problematic, for the reasons Bernice shows above as well as tendency to excessive curling.

I find Foma 200 perfectly adequate as an economic alternative for 4X5 and 35mm formats - which are those formats I have used.
I haven't experienced any problems other than some scratches due to me forgetting the emulsion is softer than HP5+ or FP4+ and therefore requires a more gentle handling.

[tokyo_blues]

Could people reporting issues describe batch number, expiration date, and process used, down to the details, please.

I have had nothing but fantastic results from Foma in medium format over the past years. Foma 100 and 400 are simply perfect, and all the reported 'issues' I've seen online were due to operator mishandling. 100% of them. As for Foma 200, it had a couple of problematic batches, and it's definitely a softer emulsion than the other two, but it's mostly fine since a year or so.

The main issue IMHO with Foma is that it's perceived as a 'cheap' option which encourages 'experimental' (to put it mildly) handling.

You don't often see people complaining about Tmax or Trix because it's expensive, so it almost never ends in old pinhole junk or 100 year old folders with rusty rollers, or tortured by 'semi-stand' or 'stand' processes.

[interneg]

Could people reporting issues describe batch number, expiration date, and process used, down to the details, please.

I have had nothing but fantastic results from Foma in medium format over the past years. Foma 100 and 400 are simply perfect, and all the reported 'issues' I've seen online were due to operator mishandling. 100% of them. As for Foma 200, it had a couple of problematic batches, and it's definitely a softer emulsion than the other two, but it's mostly fine since a year or so.

The main issue IMHO with Foma is that it's perceived as a 'cheap' option which encourages 'experimental' (to put it mildly) handling.

You don't often see people complaining about Tmax or Trix because it's expensive, so it almost never ends in old pinhole junk or 100 year old folders with rusty rollers, or tortured by 'semi-stand' or 'stand' processes.

Most of Foma 200's problems relate to known problems with tabular grain emulsions suffering from physical stress (grain cracking) when subjected to the angles found in some 120 film paths - they even say as much in the current data sheet. Tmax 100 is on a thicker base than most 120 precisely because of this. I also recall something to the effect that if Foma resolved the issues, the film would be about level with Kodak/ Ilford pricing.

[Havoc]

Most of Foma 200's problems relate to known problems with tabular grain emulsions suffering from physical stress (grain cracking) when subjected to the angles found in some 120 film paths - they even say as much in the current data sheet. Tmax 100 is on a thicker base than most 120 precisely because of this. I also recall something to the effect that if Foma resolved the issues, the film would be about level with Kodak/ Ilford pricing.

Interesting. So far I have used the 200 in 120 format only in a Wista roll film holder. This has rather large rollers so I would not expect it. I still have a couple of rolls from the same buy, I'll give it a try in a Mamiya C330 which has a (so good as) straight path between the spools.

[koraks]

The main issue IMHO with Foma is that it's perceived as a 'cheap' option which encourages 'experimental' (to put it mildly) handling.

You don't often see people complaining about Tmax or Trix because it's expensive, so it almost never ends in old pinhole junk or 100 year old folders with rusty rollers, or tortured by 'semi-stand' or 'stand' processes.

While this may explain a tiny portion of the problems with Foma 200 in 120 format, the majority of the incidents I see described & illustrated and have experienced myself have nothing to do with poor handling. In my own case, I've even sent materials for evaluation to Foma who got back to me, confirmed the problem was with the film and sent me replacement rolls (with the same defects).

I'm not a fan of bashing a brand based on a particular problem that's demonstrably confined to a particular product, neither am I a fan of bashing people who report problems on the assumption that they don't know what they're doing.